S.V. PHARMACY AND NURSING HOME,ALUVA vs. THE JCIT, ALUVA RANGE, ALUVA, ALUVA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the amount received was a rent advance, not a deposit or loan, and thus not in violation of Section 269SS. The assessee also had a bona fide belief that the receipt was not covered by Section 269SS.
What were the facts?
The assessee received Rs. 5 Lacs as rent advance from a tenant. The AO levied a penalty under Section 271D for alleged violation of Section 269SS, considering it a deposit. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.
What were the issues?
Whether a rent advance received by the assessee constitutes a deposit or loan attracting penalty under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS, and if there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Saini Medical Stores22 citing277 ITR 420 · 2005 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, A.M
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 29-04-2022 confirming penalty of Rs.5 Lacs as levied by Ld.
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) u/s 271D vide order dated 25.05.2011. Having heard, rival submissions, the appeal is disposed- off as under.
The impugned penalty stem from the fact that during assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee received deposit of Rs.5 Lacs as rent advance from Margin free Shop against letting of the property belonging to the assessee. The Ld. AO, holding the same to be security deposit received in violation of Sec.269SS, imposed impugned penalty u/s 271D. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The Ld. AR explained that the amount is received in consideration of letting out of the property with the condition that the rent arrears would be adjusted from the same and balance would be refunded to the payee. The Ld. AR submitted that the receipts were genuine and under bona fide belief that the same would not come within purview of Sec.269SS. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for confirmation of penalty.
From the fact, it emerges that what the assessee has received is rent advance from which rental arrears could be adjusted by the assessee. The same would be taxable as Income from House Property. Therefore, such receipts could neither be considered as deposit nor loan which call for imposition of penalty in terms of Sec.269SS. Further, the assessee was under bona fide belief that such receipts would not come within the purview of Sec.269SS. The case law of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Saini Medical Store (277 ITR 420) supports the case of the assessee wherein it was held that a combined reading of provisions of sections 271E and 273B of the Act makes it clear that if the assessee shows reasonable cause for the failure to comply with any provision referred thereto, the penalty for its violation shall not be imposable on the assessee. There was no intention to avoid or evade the taxes. Therefore, considering the factual matrix, we delete the impugned penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee which makes stay application infructuous.
The appeal stands allowed. The stay application stands dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced on 30th November, 2022.
More judgments on Section 271D
- Sujatha Vaddanapu, Nalgonda vs ITO, Ward-1, NalgondaITA 2048/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Inder Lal Ramrakhyani, Dhamtari vs ITO, DhamtariITA 694/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Harshit Singhania Buildcon, RaipurITA 560/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shree Jalaram Finance, Borsad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4), PetladITA 1785/AHD/2026[2000-01]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Veera Mani Kumari Vattikooti, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 1218/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026